• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules Ten Commandments monument must go

Whether allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed as it was in this case violates the Establishment Clause or some other part of the First Amendment does not depend on what you personally think. And the Supreme Court does not seem to agree with your assertion that it's permissible only if "any other religion" also gets to put its monument up on the same grounds.

You might want to look at Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, a 2009 Supreme Court decision. Members of the Summum religion demanded that the city let it place a monument inscribed with the "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" in a city park where other donated monuments had been erected. The Court held that although the area was a "traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory acts, the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to which forum analysis applies."

The placement of a permanent monument in a public park was not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause, the Court explained, because it was a form of government speech. As long as the city's acceptance of a monument could not be seen as an endorsement of religion, it was free to accept or reject private monuments.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that personal opinions were not allowed on forums.
 
Once again, here they are:

1. You shall have no other Gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourselves an idol
3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not give false testimony
10. You shall not covet

1. outlawed by the First Amendment.
2. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
3. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
4. Most big stores are open on Saturday and Sunday both. No sabbaths there.
5. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
6. Bingo! There's one!
7. Won't get you in trouble with the law, but could have some negative consequences.
8. Bingo! Yet another!
9. And there's the third
10. Downright encouraged in a capitalist system.

There you go. The Ten Commandments as a basis for modern law.

Outside of #2 was never a law in the United States.

I mean #2 means don't be an arrogant clownish aristocratic fool. However even #2 could be considered treason, considering those guilty of being treasonous in history have often carried those traits...... Now, obviously in the US it's not illegal to be an arrogant fool, however that arrogance will certainly lead you to break the state laws that are based off the Ten Commandments.
 
It's well worth pointing out, in turn, that most “progressives” are very “tolerant” of things with which they agree. Of things with which they do not agree, not so much.

Of course, this wrong-wing interpretation of “tolerance” misses the entire point of tolerance.

View attachment 67170954

100% correct and I would love to give you a like on that but for some reason it won't let me..... But thumbs up.

You're right tho, progressives are only tolerant with their own ideas, anyone else with a different idea or contradicts their ideas is "intolerant" or "racist" or a "bigot.."

IMO, people should be individuals and form their own opinions instead of being trained or told to accept one idea or another.

People need to figure out their own philosophies and their own moral compass and hate or envy won't help anyone figure that out - it will just lead to more conflict.

I don't mean to sound philosophical but.......
 
Nice debate guys, however I'm running behind in my day/evening and I have plans so -- "I'll be back" later this weekend to pick this up again because it is interesting.

Have good weekends yall... :2wave:
 
My given name is "Franklin". A franklin was someone who served their lord out of love for them, not out of obligation. As such, the term translates to "faithful servant" pretty well.

So... delusional. Got it. :roll:
 
The Ten Commandments are one of the foundational legal statements of mankind. They are entirely appropriate to posted in front of a courthouse. The examples you give are NOT part of the foundational legal examples of our society, the Ten are (along with several other documents). This is the reason they are there an as such, they should be left alone. It's why we haven't removed all the rest of the examples of the Ten from our federals buildings, because they represent one of the core documents of our legal system.

Now, I'll most likely be accused of stating that the Ten are the foundation of our laws, which I most certainly am not stating. They are a part of it, but not the whole of it.

It was nothing of the sort, mankind has been around a lot longer than some idiot camel jockeys in the middle of the desert scribbling down religious drivel a couple of thousand years ago. Maybe you ought to get your nose out of that idiotic Bible and learn some real history. You know, like the Treaty of Tripoli, written by George Washington, in which it is written: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
 
I agree. It was funded by private sources.

And still put on public land. It doesn't matter who pays for it, it matters where it sits. Anyone who wants to put the Ten Commandments in their own front yard, on their own property, is welcome to do so. They do not have a right to put it on public land that belongs to all of us.

Try again.
 
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that personal opinions were not allowed on forums.

No apology is needed, and of course personal opinions are allowed here. But this thread began by talking about a court decision, not about what policy on placing religious monuments in public places should be followed. And whether someone may put up one of these monuments in a public place is a constitutional issue.
 
And still put on public land. It doesn't matter who pays for it, it matters where it sits. Anyone who wants to put the Ten Commandments in their own front yard, on their own property, is welcome to do so. They do not have a right to put it on public land that belongs to all of us.

Try again.

That may be what you think the law on this subject should be, but it's not what it now is. Justice Breyer stated it pretty well in his concurrence in a 2005 Texas case, Van Orden v. Perry.
 
Anything denoting religion on public property should not be allowed.

Church-and-State.jpg


Fortunately, your personal opinion is irrelevant.

Tell me, how does posting a copy of the Ten Commandments make laws that respects or establishes one religion over the other ?

And if a Judge ruled that they be removed then his ruling can be appealed.

It WILL be appealed.
 
Fortunately, your personal opinion is irrelevant.

Tell me, how does posting a copy of the Ten Commandments make laws that respects or establishes one religion over the other ?

And if a Judge ruled that they be removed then his ruling can be appealed.

It WILL be appealed.

I think Sharia Law should be placed on courtrooms because they're just as applicable.
 
I think Sharia Law should be placed on courtrooms because they're just as applicable.

" Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Does posting the Ten commandments on a Public building do that ?

And also, what does Sharia Law have to do with our Judeo Christian founding ?
 
" Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Does posting the Ten commandments on a Public building do that ?

And also, what does Sharia Law have to do with our Judeo Christian founding ?
Can you see how you contradict yourself in as little as two sentences?
 
As far as I'm concerned this should be a local government issue. Whatever the city council decides can be there, whether Christian, Jewish, Satanist, atheist or whatever.:peace
 
It's just words, what's the big deal?

It's words the government endorses. I don't think those words should be cheapened by letting any majority throw its ideology around.
 
The Ten Commandments are one of the foundational legal statements of mankind. They are entirely appropriate to posted in front of a courthouse. The examples you give are NOT part of the foundational legal examples of our society, the Ten are (along with several other documents). This is the reason they are there an as such, they should be left alone. It's why we haven't removed all the rest of the examples of the Ten from our federals buildings, because they represent one of the core documents of our legal system.

Now, I'll most likely be accused of stating that the Ten are the foundation of our laws, which I most certainly am not stating. They are a part of it, but not the whole of it.

Mankind was around for a 10s of 1000s of years before the ten commandments, which means it cannot be anything akin to foundational. Furthermore the bible simply related stories similar to ones that are centuries older than the bible, again meaning that the xian 10 commandments are not foundational to mankind.
 
Mankind was around for a 10s of 1000s of years before the ten commandments, which means it cannot be anything akin to foundational. Furthermore the bible simply related stories similar to ones that are centuries older than the bible, again meaning that the xian 10 commandments are not foundational to mankind.

Is there a particular Commandment with which you disagree?
 
To the Left, the government has to be the religion everyone has faith in.

We on the left have so many religions. Atheism is our religion, statism is our religion, government is our religion, science is our religion. It get so confusing what to pray to after a while.
 
Is there a particular Commandment with which you disagree?

We belie all of them, so I'm figuring they are all pretty useless. Dittohead not! posted this analysis...

Once again, here they are:

1. You shall have no other Gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourselves an idol
3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not give false testimony
10. You shall not covet

1. outlawed by the First Amendment.
2. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
3. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
4. Most big stores are open on Saturday and Sunday both. No sabbaths there.
5. won't get you in trouble in Modern America.
6. Bingo! There's one!
7. Won't get you in trouble with the law, but could have some negative consequences.
8. Bingo! Yet another!
9. And there's the third
10. Downright encouraged in a capitalist system.

There you go. The Ten Commandments as a basis for modern law.

But I'd go so far as to say that even the three he thinks are part of our society are not, and are instead conditionally accepted in our modern society, so really none of them apply, and it's an entirely useless list.
 
Can you see how you contradict yourself in as little as two sentences?


No, not really.

Because first, posting the Ten Commandments in a public building doesn't " make laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " and second, our Country has a History believe it or not.

If you want to ignore that because it threatens you somehow thats on you.
 
We belie all of them, so I'm figuring they are all pretty useless. Dittohead not! posted this analysis...



But I'd go so far as to say that even the three he thinks are part of our society are not, and are instead conditionally accepted in our modern society, so really none of them apply, and it's an entirely useless list.

But you didn't state the ones with which YOU disagree...
 
Back
Top Bottom